Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SIGURÐUR EINARSSON AND OTHERS v. ICELAND

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);No violation of Article 6+6-3-b - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  EINARSSON AND OTHERS v. ICELAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 39757/15
• EGMR, 03.02.2021 - 39757/15

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

• EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 20933/08

  RADZHAB MAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 39757/15

  However, the Court observes that while the Supreme Court could undoubtedly have declared the telephone tapping in question to be unlawful and/or unjustified, it is less clear whether it was open to the Supreme Court, in the context of criminal proceedings, to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society" and to grant appropriate relief in that respect (see Akhlyustin v. Russia, no. 21200/05, § 24, 7 November 2017, and Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05, 7070/06 and 5402/07, § 88, 7 November 2017, and Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, § 22, 7 November 2017; see also, in connection with the existence of an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention, Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V, P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX, Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 59, 8 March 2011 (where the question of exhaustion was joined to the merits of the Article 13 complaint), and Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-107, 7 February 2017; and, by contrast, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaz?†ikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 25 and 40-46, 31 March 2016; and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 20 and 77-79, 20 December 2016).
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 35285/08

  IRFAN GÜZEL c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 39757/15

  However, the Court observes that while the Supreme Court could undoubtedly have declared the telephone tapping in question to be unlawful and/or unjustified, it is less clear whether it was open to the Supreme Court, in the context of criminal proceedings, to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society" and to grant appropriate relief in that respect (see Akhlyustin v. Russia, no. 21200/05, § 24, 7 November 2017, and Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05, 7070/06 and 5402/07, § 88, 7 November 2017, and Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, § 22, 7 November 2017; see also, in connection with the existence of an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention, Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V, P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX, Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 59, 8 March 2011 (where the question of exhaustion was joined to the merits of the Article 13 complaint), and Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-107, 7 February 2017; and, by contrast, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaz?†ikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 25 and 40-46, 31 March 2016; and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 20 and 77-79, 20 December 2016).
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 59589/10

  KONSTANTIN MOSKALEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 39757/15

  However, the Court observes that while the Supreme Court could undoubtedly have declared the telephone tapping in question to be unlawful and/or unjustified, it is less clear whether it was open to the Supreme Court, in the context of criminal proceedings, to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society" and to grant appropriate relief in that respect (see Akhlyustin v. Russia, no. 21200/05, § 24, 7 November 2017, and Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05, 7070/06 and 5402/07, § 88, 7 November 2017, and Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, § 22, 7 November 2017; see also, in connection with the existence of an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention, Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V, P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX, Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 59, 8 March 2011 (where the question of exhaustion was joined to the merits of the Article 13 complaint), and Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-107, 7 February 2017; and, by contrast, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaz?†ikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 25 and 40-46, 31 March 2016; and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 20 and 77-79, 20 December 2016).

 
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 39757/15

  The Court should not act as a fourth-instance body and will therefore not question under Article 6 § 1 the national courts" assessment, unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see, for example, Dulaurans v. France, no. 34553/97, §§ 33-34 and 38, 21 March 2000; Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007; AnÄ‘elkovic v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013; and Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 64-65, ECHR 2015).".
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 21200/05

  AKHLYUSTIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 39757/15

  However, the Court observes that while the Supreme Court could undoubtedly have declared the telephone tapping in question to be unlawful and/or unjustified, it is less clear whether it was open to the Supreme Court, in the context of criminal proceedings, to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society" and to grant appropriate relief in that respect (see Akhlyustin v. Russia, no. 21200/05, § 24, 7 November 2017, and Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05, 7070/06 and 5402/07, § 88, 7 November 2017, and Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, § 22, 7 November 2017; see also, in connection with the existence of an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention, Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V, P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX, Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 59, 8 March 2011 (where the question of exhaustion was joined to the merits of the Article 13 complaint), and Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-107, 7 February 2017; and, by contrast, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaz?†ikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 25 and 40-46, 31 March 2016; and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 20 and 77-79, 20 December 2016).
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  DRAGOJEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 39757/15

  However, the Court observes that while the Supreme Court could undoubtedly have declared the telephone tapping in question to be unlawful and/or unjustified, it is less clear whether it was open to the Supreme Court, in the context of criminal proceedings, to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society" and to grant appropriate relief in that respect (see Akhlyustin v. Russia, no. 21200/05, § 24, 7 November 2017, and Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05, 7070/06 and 5402/07, § 88, 7 November 2017, and Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, § 22, 7 November 2017; see also, in connection with the existence of an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention, Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V, P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX, Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 59, 8 March 2011 (where the question of exhaustion was joined to the merits of the Article 13 complaint), and Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-107, 7 February 2017; and, by contrast, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaz?†ikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 25 and 40-46, 31 March 2016; and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 20 and 77-79, 20 December 2016).
• EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86

  BENDENOUN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 39757/15

  The accused may, however, be expected to give specific reasons for his request (see Bendenoun v. France, 24 February 1994, § 52, Series A no. 284) and the domestic courts are entitled to examine the validity of these reasons (see C.G.P., cited above).".
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 29431/05

  ZUBKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 39757/15

  However, the Court observes that while the Supreme Court could undoubtedly have declared the telephone tapping in question to be unlawful and/or unjustified, it is less clear whether it was open to the Supreme Court, in the context of criminal proceedings, to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society" and to grant appropriate relief in that respect (see Akhlyustin v. Russia, no. 21200/05, § 24, 7 November 2017, and Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05, 7070/06 and 5402/07, § 88, 7 November 2017, and Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, § 22, 7 November 2017; see also, in connection with the existence of an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention, Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V, P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX, Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 59, 8 March 2011 (where the question of exhaustion was joined to the merits of the Article 13 complaint), and Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-107, 7 February 2017; and, by contrast, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaz?†ikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 25 and 40-46, 31 March 2016; and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 20 and 77-79, 20 December 2016).
• EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  P.G. AND J.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 39757/15

  However, the Court observes that while the Supreme Court could undoubtedly have declared the telephone tapping in question to be unlawful and/or unjustified, it is less clear whether it was open to the Supreme Court, in the context of criminal proceedings, to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society" and to grant appropriate relief in that respect (see Akhlyustin v. Russia, no. 21200/05, § 24, 7 November 2017, and Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05, 7070/06 and 5402/07, § 88, 7 November 2017, and Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, § 22, 7 November 2017; see also, in connection with the existence of an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention, Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V, P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX, Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 59, 8 March 2011 (where the question of exhaustion was joined to the merits of the Article 13 complaint), and Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-107, 7 February 2017; and, by contrast, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaz?†ikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 25 and 40-46, 31 March 2016; and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 20 and 77-79, 20 December 2016).
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 72118/01

  KHAMIDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 39757/15

  The Court should not act as a fourth-instance body and will therefore not question under Article 6 § 1 the national courts" assessment, unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see, for example, Dulaurans v. France, no. 34553/97, §§ 33-34 and 38, 21 March 2000; Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007; AnÄ‘elkovic v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013; and Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 64-65, ECHR 2015).".
• EGMR, 12.05.2000 - 35394/97

  Menschenrechte: Schutz der Privatsphäre, Faires Verfahren
• EGMR, 10.09.2002 - 40461/98

  LEWIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84

  PFEIFER ET PLANKL c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 14659/04

  DOROZHKO AND POZHARSKIY v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 30.09.1985 - 9300/81

  CAN v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

  WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 28901/95

  ROWE AND DAVIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 54574/07

  PAUNOVIC v. SERBIA

  The Court notes that the relevant case-law is set out in Morice v. France ([GC] no. 29369/10, §§ 73-78, ECHR 2015; see also, in the criminal context, Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, §§ 118-21, 15 December 2005, and Sigurður Einarsson and Others v. Iceland, no. 39757/15, §§ 55-59, 4 June 2019).